Philip Perkins

On the cart, for movie jobs, no (using direct outs from mixer). On music location recording and multitrack video shows, yes. In general I've been very happy with the pres in the MOTU boxes I have--lots of headroom, neutral, clean. The pres in the newer 8Pre I have sounds slightly better to me than those in my Travelers, so they seem to be steadily improving. This new box is cool...but no 12VDC or bus-powering, and it looks like it is a whole rack space taller. MOTU stuff has been a tremendous bang for buck for location recording, but for studio recording under more pristine conditions I think I'd probably go upmarket. (I have several friends doing very high level music work w/ MOTU boxes and outboard pres.) One plus w/ MOTU (and its competitors from RME and MH) is that their software apps allow me to be able to solo inputs and make several different monitor mixes w/o bringing along a console. The Traveler has good TC and ext.clock features as well. Philip Perkins

Just did another job for Apple, at the same store we shot at 2 months ago. Last time in this store there were Macbook "Airs" all over the place, on 2 or 3 whole tables. This time there were maybe 2 in the whole (big) store, and their place on the tables had been taken by lots of regular Macbooks. I know its grad-time, so MacBooks will be selling big, but there had been so many complaints about the lack of ports etc on the Air that I wondered how well they were selling. Philip Perkins

Look out re: freq.s 700 MHz and above for the short run, although exactly how that spectrum sale will play out in terms of use is not clear in every locale yet. I'm keeping my Lectro block 27/28 stuff for now--it's old enough that I'd rather have the use of it until it is literally run over, but I'm not buying any more gear in those blocks. For later on in the indefinite future it seems like most of the UHF band will get sold off to someone for something--but how that will work is still science fiction. Philip Perkins

I'm not a nay-sayer, and I am very interested in new modes of production. Please send a link to your film's website so we can look for it--I'm sure I have something to learn from how you are making your movie. Since you bought so much gear I'm guessing you have plans to make more films this way, and I'd like to hear about them. Philip Perkins

This kind of rudeness didn't start w/ the iPhone, but that technology has made it worse. On several jobs I've been on recently there has been at least one person who refuses to turn their phone off. Period. Either they are a star, and everyone is too intimidated to ask, or they are crew or posse and just lie about whether their phone is off or not. One sound mixer I know has resorted to walking around the set after a hit mid-take and demanding that everyone show him their phone so he can see it is off. I had an instance just recently where I think someone left their personal stuff on or near the set and left. The set was inside a big building so the phone was "searching for the collective" all the time. We never did get that scene clean all the way through, despite harangues after ever take. Philip Perkins

I guess because I do a good deal of audio post myself I want to keep my karma clean. I've been too often in situations where I'm handed off a big pile o' files w/ no docs or labelling, and have to do a huge amount of soul-destroying detective work just to be able start the real work of sound-cutting the film. That experience made me much more meticulous about backups and record keeping and organizing my deliverables with an eye towards making this less painful for the sound editor. Philip Perkins

My recent low-budg drama experience matches this pretty exactly. Often in those situations the sound mixer is one of the very few real professionals on the set, and usually the editor ends up communicating with the mixer about record keeping and coverage etc.. In that case, as mon ami Phil says, your sound reports my be the ONLY reliable log of what went down during shooting ("what camera reports?"), so scene/take/file # and TC are all info very gratefully received by editors. If you are double system show the camera a TC slate w/ audio TC, and try to get them to establish a sequence of "roll numbers", new for each time a set of cards goes into the camera. This will help organize the material for later re: uprezing, conforming audio etc.. Philip Perkins

Since you ask about slates, I assume this is a film job? But then you talk about running audio to the cameras, which would make it a video job? Are you doing double system audio w/ video? Did the client ask for that or is it a backup? For most 2 camera video shoots the general assumption is that both cameras get the same audio (2 chan), you monitor both cams (not all the time, but setup and check as you go). If they have asked for double system audio then a slate is a great idea, if they haven't then just take a TC feed from the A camera and run your recorder in Ext TC mode. If the cams are pro types they will be genlocked together and one camera will be the master TC gen for the whole job (in free-run mode, hopefully). If the cams are prosumer types w/o TC output, then you'll have to generate your own TC, and using the TC slate is more important if they want to sync up your recorder audio to the picture later. In most cases, anymore, it seems like everyone wants audio to go to the video cameras, even if it is only as a guide track. On low-to-mid budg jobs the camera audio is what they want to use, to save the time and hassle of post syncing, and your recording is really a backup, for wild sound or transcription. Whether or not to use 2 booms is a separate concern from the 2 camera issue. If that seems like a good way to cover the scenes then go for it, regardless of how many cameras or recorders are in use. Philip Perkins

Jeez--I just wanted to see what a Deva report looked like--simple curiosity. I guess since it opens in Excel it can look anyway you want it to. Philip Perkins

My son graduated with a degree in Film Studies. He (eventually) got a job in the field he wants to work in in the biz (talent management etc) and the film studies degree was thought to have shown that he was very interested in and knowledgeable about the history and vocabulary on the medium--not that he had acquired any on the practical skills he uses every day (those he got on his own, outside school mostly, except for learning how to learn). Many years ago the writer-director John Milius was asked (in an interview) what was good or important about going to film school, and he said that it got him really really stoked about making movies, and that it was important to be that stoked to get you through all the BS that comes along with working in the medium and business. Philip Perkins

Thanks, Jeff. "woulda, coulda..." Philip Perkins

If someone has a DEVA sound report in a pdf etc format I'd love to see it. Philip Perkins

The "Bowfinger Theory". Yes, it works for people who are arrogant enough to believe that an academic background in film theory, a small amount of experience shooting personal projects of no consequence and the fact that they get to go to parties with major donors to their school who might be famous filmmakers qualifies them as major filmmakers in their own right. You can't help these people--they don't think they need any help and believe that working their way is stealing the "art of filmmaking" back from the overpaid jackals (people like us) who have colonized it for our own lazy, devious, blue-collar purposes. It's ok, their projects never amount to anything outside their own institution, and their students eventually either get knocked in the head by reality or find something else to do. I have frequently tried to explain to such folks that the movie/video business is full of very smart, pretty ruthless people who are in it to get rich, and they do not spend money on their projects without believing they have to. They use professional crews. What conclusion do we draw from this? Philip Perkins

Yeah, true, but even if they paid you sort of decently they are still going to move on to people with more experience and more impressive credits if they become successful, or at least that's what usually happens. Philip Perkins

If those rules work for you then rock on. I think I'm a bit more "situational" than you--I try to take in the whole picture of what is going on and then examine how I feel about it. I HAVE done well with deferred contracts, several times, so it does work out well sometimes. I don't want my working life to be entirely about money, but I don't want to be taken advantage of either, unless I think it is for a good cause. The main things I look for in people calling w/ these sorts of jobs are honesty, humility and a sense that they understand what they are asking for and are grateful that their project will be considered under the circumstances. Philip Perkins

I find myself doing both. On 16+ track jobs I can't write fast enough to do a written report, and it is less confusing for post (often, me) to have the pdf. For regular telecine and rough cutting, a report on paper is really great. Many people into the recorder-generated report thing have printers on their carts now, so they have both ways covered. Philip Perkins

Man, and they used to GIVE those posters away! I wish I had taken some. Philip Perkins

Re actors ruining lavs and TX: this is a FINANCIAL matter, and no one (should) expect you to keep quiet about it. If the actor will not respond to your requests to handle your gear yourself, then you need to talk to the producer or UPM about it right away, and inform them that there will be loss and damages charges for all damage done by talent to your equipment. If the actor is a star, they will probably tell you to leave them alone, keep track and settle up later. If they are not--I've had producers talk to the actors directly about this--even ones who were not particularly friendly to me or sound. Don't wait to do this until the shoot is over, deal with this now. I had one situation involving Famous Director and Famous Talent where the talent broke his mic on purpose and tossed his TX. When I went in to deliver the audio for that day I taped the broken gear to the tape boxes and made sure the producer saw it and asked about it. I was compensated. Philip Perkins

In post, I've lost count of the number of times that we've tweaked and torqued a problematic line or scene, ADRed it, then tweaked and torqued those lines to get them to sit in the scene only to have the director go back to the problematic production sound and live with it: the performance just wasn't happening in the ADR. Philip Perkins

Yeah but this is an apples and oranges thing. There IS a diff between 48 and 96k, but what most of us record won't allow that diff to be noticeable, so it doesn't add anything to the show. There is a visible diff between 4:4:4 and 4:2:2, and it is visible no matter how crappy the production is. Philip Perkins

I don't think any of those reasons for recording location production dialog at 96K are worthwhile, accurate or provable in any sense, with the possible exception of the SFX recordings, which is a hotly debated topic. What I CAN prove is that doing so is: A: non-standard, and a pain for people downstream (as for the OP). If not for the first people in line, certainly farther on (as in audio post). It is the audio equivalent of deciding you will roll your TC at 24 fps. A valid known rate, but not one anyone uses and is set up for, and would require an extra effort and more time. B: A storage and deliverable issue--the footprint of the files is much larger, copying takes longer, backups are more of a deal. C: Any increase in audio fidelity will be nullified by background noise on location, anomalies and noise introduced by wireless mics and other systemic audio issues in or around the sound cart. D: Ultimately, the audio will have to be SRCed down to a rate that can be dealt with in post and distro. SRC is another much debated topic, but I think there is agreement that NOT doing it is better than doing it. There is a point of view that SRCing 96k down to 48k compromises whatever increase in audio quality was gained by recording 96k in the first place, especially if dither is used. E: Are you sure you are recording on equipment that is really up to 24/96? Many recorders and recording chains really can't take advantage of the higher sample rates (and bit widths)--their analog audio electronics (pres, summing, covertors) aren't up to the task. Philip Perkins

It sounds like you are doing the best you can. Try to relax and get into the mindset of the producers, and not let yourself become the film's Designated Whiner. If you allow this to happen then your requests may be discounted out of hand. We all end up recording audio we don't like a whole lot, but if the people who's film it actually is (ie not yours) want to work this way then it is up to you to give them what they want how they want it. A lot CAN be done in post, including ADR, and not cutting sound any slack because of this has become pretty common. Tell them what they got or didn't get out of the scene (or at least get w/ your own notes and scripty's) and move on. I used to work for a very good indie director whose response to the sort of issues that you raise was a friendly "Low budg!". This was his code for "I heard you, I'm sorry you aren't happy with the sound we got here, I'm moving on. Thanks for trying, but I gotta go." That is the brutal reality of low budget (and a lot of higher budget) filmmaking. Remember....you have to leave SOME challenges for post-production...we don't want them getting lazy and bored.... Philip Perkins

I agree with you--I think 96k has some interest for A: sfx recordists who want to be able slow down their recordings and still maintain full-fi, and B: in music recording where ALL the other parameters (score, player, instrument, recording chain, room) are ultra high quality. For location dialog--I will be frank and say that using 96k for that is just showboating, ignorance or both. Besides, for anything other than a spot like you mention w/ just a few lines, making the deliverables would be a pain in the ass--very time consuming. I don't think I get a vote about whether 96k will become a trend, but I hope it doesn't. Philip Perkins

I have worked with this camera and its bigger brothers in the same line. No diff for sound than any other dinky-cam as far as I heard on my return. I am doing the audio post for one film shot with these and when the sound people and location was good it was fine and when they were not it sucks, like normal. One nice thing about them is that they can take a big v-back battery on the rear, which is a good place to hang a straddle bag for RX, or velcro them to the battery. Philip Perkins

Lots of folks using both the older Mackie 16xx series and the newer Onyx. I like them both, have done lots of work on the former. I used to have a smaller Mackie board that was converted to run on 12VDC, but I understand that the guy who did it (Forrest of Alternative Audio) now works @ COffey and no longer does the mods. Otherwise--inverters. There is a big hole in the mixer market right now between full up analog location boards like Sonosax and prosumer gear like Mackie. I'd advise you to take some test drives--and remember that w/ Mackie or Yamaha a replacement is as close as your local music store. I found with my Mackies that I had to build up a lot external stuff for routing, talkback etc etc, and ultimately wasn't thrilled with using them on a cart for dialog (music was ok). The Onyx is pretty big for a cart--not as big as a Yamaha digital board but getting there. There are used Coopers around--the 106 is a very compact great sounding console...that used would sell for as much as 5 Mackies would cost. PSC made two mixers that used to be in the "less than Cooper" zone (M8 and M6), but they discontinued the last of the M6s about 2 years ago. (I have and like the M6, in a highly modified form, but it is an acquired taste--it is a somewhat unique device.) But PSC is great about supporting and modding their stuff, even LONG after the initial sale (I got my M6 used). I had an Audio Developments mixer for MANY years and like the sound, but service and support in the US has always been minimal. The latest development in location mixers seems to be no mixer--using Deva's Mix12 or Cantar's Cantarem. If I was in the market for a new recorder I would certainly consider going that way. (Scott Farr has a pretty complete blog on the setting up of his cart w/ the Aaton stuff.) Big savings in power usage, weight and space. I had always hoped that Sound Devices would make a version of the 442 that had a remote fader panel, like the old Filmtech mixers..... Remember that some of the stuff that makes the 442 so great: transformer in and out, input and output limiters, connections for camera snakes, slate mic, multiple return monitoring are really only available in Cooper-level analog "cart" mixers--with Mackies you kind of have to figure a lot of that stuff out for yourself. Philip Perkins